So, where’s AJStrata been? Really busy is the short answer. Our little company has been growing since we are on a major program in need of our skill set, so my priorities have been outside politics and on real life.

So when we face an election where we have to choose between to variants of intrusive and wasteful government, the nation goes back to work and life – awaiting their time to chime in.

I seriously doubt Obama will be re-elected. The only way it will happen is if We The People decide gridlock and 4 years of investigation and discussion by Congress on the role of government is the right answer at this point in time. It may be the right answer. We should be scrubbing the government for corruption, ineptitude and waste. That will take years to review and kill as necessary.

And let Obama be the who has to defend the liberal madness. It should be hilarious.

Update: Anyway, to finish the thought since I had to go to lunch – following the bland political debate that is now occurring I have to admit to a lack of anything of interest to post. It’s so, ugly and going nowhere.

35 Responses to “Where’s AJStrata?”

I already posted this a few threads back, but this “natural born citizen” issue is a zombie that keeps coming back from the dead every time it’s put down.

to repeat:

Unfortunately for Redteam’s theory, this issue has gone to court twice recently and it has lost both times. Now these decisions are at the State level, but the Federal Courts have shown no interest in even considering any appeals on these cases, which means these rulings stand as “good law” until some newer case can come along to overturn them. Since they are State court rulings, they are “binding precedent” only in their respective States, but they are supporting precedent in any US Court at any level. To define a term: “good law” in legal parlance means a case that can be validly cited as precedent in any US Court. The rules of precedence can be complex and sometimes have to be balanced against each other; for example, a higher court has more precedence than a lower court, but a newer decision has more precedence than an older decision. The reason newer has more precedence than older, even if the court is a lower court, is that there is a presumption that if the newer decision conflicted with current interpretation, then it would have been appealed and overturned. If the new decision has been allowed to stand by higher courts, then it is presumed to have been too much of a slam dunk for anyone to litigate it any further, which is why these cases are valid precedent in any US Court. Since they are at a lower level, they have the *Potential* to be overturned, but unless and until that happens they remain standing as current “good law”.

(and please, I do not make the rules, I’m just reporting what they are)

For anyone who wants to go to court, it is very important to have a strong handle on current “good law”, ESPECIALLY if you want to overturn it. Someone who goes in and just says “well that recent case was wrong, I don’t have to say why” gets laughed out of court on the first day of arguments. (kind of like what happened to the Solicitor General in the recent Obamacare arguments) For those who want to fight for an opposing view, legally you will have to go through the Indiana decision line by line and construct countervailing arguments based in actual law, not in philosophy or political theory.

Quotation from he concluding ruling from the Indiana Court: (full ruling available at the link at the end) Remember, I didn’t write this, the Court of Appeals for the State of Indiana did.

“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens. The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority intheir complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise andquotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court?s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs? arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure tostate a claim. Irish, 864 N.E.2d at 1120. Thus, we cannot say that the trial court erred when it dismissed the Plaintiffs case.

See generally McCalment v. Eli Lilly & Co.,860 N.E.2d 884 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (holding that the plaintiffs? arguments had been
sufficiently addressed by Indiana Supreme Court precedent and therefore the trial court did not err when it granted the defendant?s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted); see also, e.g., Diaz-Salazar v. I.N.S., 700 F.2d 1156,1160 (7th Cir. 1983) (noting in its recitation of the facts that despite the fact father was not a citizen of the United States, he had children who were “natural-born citizens of the United States”)
, cert. denied 462 U.S. 1132, 103 S. Ct. 3112 (1983)

This was the ruling recently cited in a Georgia Court which resulted in a ruling that Barak Obama was indeed a “natural born citizen”. Even though many people do not like this result, and even though it has the *potential* to be changed if the Supreme Court makes a new ruling, as of this day, April 7, 2012, this ruling stands as current “Good Law” in any Court of the United States.

I’m surprised to think you have any doubt as to what a natural born citizen is. Anyone that has researched it for 10 minutes has a clear definition.

There are 3 types of citizens mentioned in the Constitution
Naturalized
Citizen
Natural born citizen

The writers of the constitution were not ambiguous. If they had meant the president could be, 1. Naturalized, they would have said “Naturalized.”
2. a citizen, they would have said “a citizen.”
3. natural born citizen, they would have said” ‘natural born citizen.”

Well, check again. They did choose one of the three.
If they are all one and the same, then why didn’t they just use the term ‘citizen’?

There is no doubt what the requirements are, some people just think the constitution is a ‘living’ document. I don’t.

You will never convince the birthers about what makes someone a citizen, anymore than you can convince a truther al Qaeda (not Bush or Cheney) were behind 9-11, anymore than you can convince an AGW alarmists the planet is not warming.

They have left logic and reality and live behind a wall of denial. They have so much vested in their myths they cannot let go.

WWS: Thanks for the repost. I remember the original now that I’ve seen it again.

RT: At least now I know where you got your defintion, but I’m not sure an article by a guy who’s a self proclaimed “business man” and who thinks Obama is an illegal occupant of the White House, is stronger than legal precedent. And right now, under current conditions, WWS is correct and all you have is wishful thinking.

As I mentioned before, a lot of top legal minds are convinced that the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause of the 14th ammendment is the key to denying citizenship to anchor babies. If they are wrong, if current legal precedent is not challenged and overturned then anyone born on US soil is a “natural born US citizen”.

Layman, WWS, just wishful thinking on your part. Fortunately for us and the Constitution, the Supreme Court determines constitutionality not the State courts. Some ‘birthers’ are actually patriots that care if the constitution is upheld or not. The US Supreme court has only ruled one time in a decision that involves ‘natural born citizen’ and that ruling has never been overturned or revised. You know it as well as I do so there is no need to re-link it again.
Layman, you clearly do not understand the difference in ‘naturalized’, native born, or natural born. Until you do, you are wasting your time trying to define anything.
What you are saying, with your definition, anyone born anywhere in the world is a natural born citizen, all they have to do is say they were born here. Clearly no proof is required. Even the president’s lawyers admitted in court that his ‘purported’ birth certificate is a fake.
As I said before, I’m not trying to convince anyone. Shouting loudly does not win a discussion. The only thing that can make Mario Rubio a natural born citizen has occurred and can’t be re-done. He missed the cut.

Someone once said the physical universe is the ultimate guru. In other words, reality rules no matter how much you wish to believe otherwise.

We have a precedent – his name is President Barack Obama. Do you really think the US Supreme Court is going to rule him an illegitimate President? If they do not then precedent stands.

Have you heard of anyone going to the Courts to have Obama ruled illegitimate and ineligible? What’s the plan? Who is behind the effort? Status? Why wasn’t this done before he took office? I just don’t see it happening!

So pontificate your patriotism all you like and then join us back down here on planet earth while we figure out how to make this guy a one term President.

Layman, are you serious? Hundreds have brought cases, many, many still in the works. The courts don’t want to face it, but will eventually.

So you’re saying that the Supreme Court not ruling on a case that has not been brought to them is a precedent. Maybe the precedent will actually be if and when they turn it down or accept it.

I don’t claim any unusual patriotism because I believe in the constitution, I give all people that believe in it the same amount.
Some people don’t mind it being changed (known as libs), I do.
I think it is good enough as it is.

“In other words, reality rules” absolutely and therefore Rubio will never be a ‘natural born citizen’.

If you think what courts do are so correct, then how do you explain Obama’s lawyer admitting in court that his most recent birth certificate is a fake, and it doesn’t make a difference in the case?
explain that.

laissez faire, eh?
Well, as you well know, I didn’t change your mind because I didn’t intend to change your mind as you didn’t change my mind for the same reason.
Everyone deals with everything as they are, you don’t have an option.
Those that recognize wrong and try to make it right are usually more satisfied than those that recognize wrong and say ‘oh well, that’s the way things are, I’ve just got to deal with it’. No one ever made things better by not trying. Just because a crook gets the upper hand doesn’t mean you have to like it or live with it.
If someone came into your house and held you and your family hostage, you would ” choose to deal with things as they are, not how I wish they were or think they should be”? I don’t think so.

RT: That’s the stupidist analogy you could have come up with. Didn’t think that one through, did you? Of course I’d deal “with things as they are, not how I wish they were or think they should be.” If someone came into my house I’d have to deal with that situation. I would not have the luxury of choosing to pretend it didn’t exist. I would not have the luxury to pontificate about the injustice of the situation. I’d have to deal with it right then and there with the cards I was dealt.

so you’d sit there and let them go on as they are with no thoughts as to how they should be or you wish they were. You’d just let the fox remain in the hen house ‘because he’s there and that’s a fact of life’ no use wishing or hoping it wasn’t true. no use wanting to change it because, hey, it’s done happened and now I’m here and I may as well like it because that’s just a fact of life.
Sounds like your ambition was to remain in kindergarten because, Hey, I’m here, may as well like it because it’s a fact of life. If someone wants to change it for you, well, that’s their business, not much you want to do about it because, well, that’s just the way it is.

I don’t think I’ve ever known anyone that only wanted what they have and nothing more, because, Hey, that’s just the way it is and I gotta deal with that, no time for working my way up because somebody done handed you what you got and that’s it.

Well, at least one of us has something to laugh at, you can’t because that’s not part of what you have and you can’t spend your time wishing you could be happy, just deal with what you have.

Layman, you need to leave your “stupidest” (by the way, you spelled it incorrectly) comment out of the discussion. I’m not questioning your intelligence and you don’t need to make the discussion ‘personal’. It’s perfectly okay to ‘deal with things the way they are’ if you don’t want change or to correct injustices . I enjoy your comments most of the time and try to apply or see the humor in our conversations.

Your comment was stupid from the standpoint of the argument you were trying to make. No where in any of my comments have I suggested that I don’t believe in taking action against injustice or wrong. I’ve simply stated that is must be dealt with realistically (based on the reality of the situation). If you want to come over to my house and expect me to “just let the fox remain in the hen house” then please do so and myself, my wife, or my two children (all well trained) will greet you with our friends Mr Smith, Mr Wesson, and Mr. Colt.

Obama is the President. Where is the court case trying to have him ruled ineligble? Come on RT! Provide us with some links to news stories about the current ongoing cases to have the President ruled ineligible. I have not seen a ruling so either the cases have not been brought, have been tossed out, or are in progress.

Let’s just pretend they are in progress. Once a ruling is made it will be appealed and then eventually make it all the way to the Supreme Court. Obamacare took 3 years to get there and that was on a fast track. So it might be 2015 or 2016 before you find out if you are correct in your definition of a “natural born citizen” which as you pointed out yesterday is not defined in the Constitution.

By then we could have had (an ineligible) President Obama for 7 or 8 years. Do you really think any Court or even the Congress is going to rule that someone elected President and having served in the office for 7-8 years must be removed? Perhaps it is a lofty priciple to believe yes – but it is also fantasy land.

I am extremely doubtful so I will work to defeat him in the next election. I also will recognize that if Obama is eligible to be President then Haley, Jindal, or Rubio are also eligible.